Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. Subscriber FMF
    a.k.a. John W Booth
    25 Jul '12 12:03
    "Courted by multinational companies and foreign heads of state over its rare minerals and potential oil resources, Greenland could win full independence from Denmark and join the European Union as a free state, according to one expert on the Arctic.
    Greenland’s leader Kuupik Kleist is boxing above his weight when it comes to foreign policy.

    Although the premier represents an autonomous island of just 57,000 people, within the last couple of months he has met with US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, European Commission President José Manuel Barroso and representatives from the Chinese government.

    Greenland is a self-ruled territory in the Kingdom of Denmark. Although it was granted home rule in 1979, the Danish government is still in charge of foreign affairs, defence, police and justice, as well as financial policy."

    http://www.euractiv.com/specialreport-rawmaterials/expert-foreign-interest-greenlan-news-514011

    Any conjecture as to how this might pan out in the years ahead and what might be Greenland's circumstances in say 50 years from now?
  2. Subscriber AThousandYoung
    It's only business
    25 Jul '12 12:12
    I think it should remain part of Denmark. Why declare independence? Are the Danes harsh taskmasters? Denmark and Greenland together are already pretty small, why split them up?
  3. Subscriber FMF
    a.k.a. John W Booth
    25 Jul '12 12:20
    Originally posted by AThousandYoung
    I think it should remain part of Denmark. Why declare independence? Are the Danes harsh taskmasters? Denmark and Greenland together are already pretty small, why split them up?
    Interesting questions to be sure. But, the OP asks what will become of these 57,000 people and their 44 politicians if there is a mineral rush? What is your picture of Greenland's 'state of the nation' 50 years from now, assuming they become independent?
  4. Subscriber Ponderable
    chemist
    25 Jul '12 12:21
    Originally posted by AThousandYoung
    I think it should remain part of Denmark. Why declare independence? Are the Danes harsh taskmasters? Denmark and Greenland together are already pretty small, why split them up?
    you are right. Especially if Greenland wants to join the Eu afterwards. In fact the big boys throw their weight around very much. And we just don't need a newly invented commisar for anything. 27 are too much.
  5. Subscriber FMF
    a.k.a. John W Booth
    25 Jul '12 12:33
    Originally posted by Ponderable
    you are right. Especially if Greenland wants to join the Eu afterwards. In fact the big boys throw their weight around very much. And we just don't need a newly invented commisar for anything. 27 are too much.
    Opposing/supporting independence is an interesting issue. But this does not address the OP question, though.
  6. Donation rwingett
    Ming the Merciless
    25 Jul '12 12:44 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by FMF
    "Courted by multinational companies and foreign heads of state over its rare minerals and potential oil resources, Greenland could win full independence from Denmark and join the European Union as a free state, according to one expert on the Arctic.
    Greenland’s leader Kuupik Kleist is boxing above his weight when it comes to foreign policy.

    Although the prem out in the years ahead and what might be Greenland's circumstances in say 50 years from now?
    The scenario I see is that if Greenland becomes independent, multinational corporations will move in like locusts and strip Greenland of everything of value. By the time Greenland has become 100% dependent on the largesse of the multinationals for survival, the multinationals will decide they can make an easier buck elsewhere and leave Greenland destitute and polluted. There will be much wailing and gnashing of teeth as the Greenlanders realize the folly of their ways. Too late they'll realize that the proverbial 'rising tide' of market capitalism is actually the rising sea level due to the melting of the polar caps by global warming. By then it's too late for them to repent their sins as they perish in the great flood.

    Edit: And here's the first piece of evidence to support my thesis:

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-18978483
  7. 25 Jul '12 13:02 / 1 edit
    0oops
  8. 25 Jul '12 13:03
    Originally posted by FMF
    Opposing/supporting independence is an interesting issue. But this does not address the OP question, though.
    Have you tried herding cats.

    I think a person would need to be privvy to these conversations regarding EU membership and what development grants have been offered for the present and future.

    I think Greenland would in the long run be better off as a euro region, rather than going it alone in a sea of chinese and american sharks.
  9. Donation rwingett
    Ming the Merciless
    25 Jul '12 13:20
    Originally posted by kevcvs57
    Have you tried herding cats.

    I think a person would need to be privvy to these conversations regarding EU membership and what development grants have been offered for the present and future.

    I think Greenland would in the long run be better off as a euro region, rather than going it alone in a sea of chinese and american sharks.
    So they would gain their sovereignty from Denmark only to surrender it to a cabal of European bankers? I think they're better off where they're at.
  10. Standard member sh76
    Civis Americanus Sum
    25 Jul '12 13:23 / 2 edits
    Originally posted by FMF
    "Courted by multinational companies and foreign heads of state over its rare minerals and potential oil resources, Greenland could win full independence from Denmark and join the European Union as a free state, according to one expert on the Arctic.
    Greenland’s leader Kuupik Kleist is boxing above his weight when it comes to foreign policy.

    Although the prem out in the years ahead and what might be Greenland's circumstances in say 50 years from now?
    Assuming global warming intensifies (and there's probably a pretty good chance it will), more of Greenland will become inhabitable and it will become more important strategically as its resources become more accessible and it becomes a more efficient base for shipping and oil exploration in the Arctic.

    Greenland being ruled by Denmark is an anachronism and only persists to the extent that it does because it's population is just too small for anyone to really care.

    In a couple of decades, I see Greenland as a key strategic sovereign nation exceedingly wealthy per capita.
  11. 25 Jul '12 13:38
    Originally posted by sh76
    Assuming global warming intensifies (and there's probably a pretty good chance it will), more of Greenland will become inhabitable and it will become more important strategically as its resources become more accessible and it becomes a more efficient base for shipping and oil exploration in the Arctic.

    Greenland being ruled by Denmark is an anachronism and o ...[text shortened]... f decades, I see Greenland as a key strategic sovereign nation exceedingly wealthy per capita.
    Presumably that will be for the people of Greenland to decide, Personally I would prefer independence with a safety net, in case all these wonderful scenarios of untold wealth disappear with the rare minerals.

    57,000 against two or three asset stripping economic super powers, Greenland could become the first colony in the 'Scramble for the Arctic'.
  12. 26 Jul '12 07:29
    Originally posted by rwingett
    There will be much wailing and gnashing of teeth as the Greenlanders realize the folly of their ways.
    Or they can simply demand the resource strippers to pay 57 billion dollars and they can all leave as millionaires and go live somewhere else. If it was Zambia, I'd take that deal.

    I believe Alaskans all get paid something for their resources.
  13. 26 Jul '12 07:34 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by kevcvs57
    Presumably that will be for the people of Greenland to decide, Personally I would prefer independence with a safety net, in case all these wonderful scenarios of untold wealth disappear with the rare minerals.

    57,000 against two or three asset stripping economic super powers, Greenland could become the first colony in the 'Scramble for the Arctic'.
    Greenland with its 57000 people is more populous than several European micro states and Pacific island nations. But none of those tiny countries are genuinely independent; some of them are in free association with the United States; they allow another country to handle their defence; and they use another's nation's currency. So I'm not sure exactly what "independence", in the technical sense, would mean for Greenland.

    But the future could be OK. The closest parallel might seem to be with Nauru, since that was also a sparsely populated island with important mineral reserves. Immediately after independence in the late 1960s and early 1970s, Nauru had one of the highest per capita GDPs in the world, but it collapsed into poverty after the phosphate reserves were exported. However, Greenland's a much larger island, and its reserves are probably a lot more extensive. And global warming (which may swamp Nauru) could bring a more hospitable climate to Greenland. So it could have a fairly long and prosperous future.
  14. Standard member avalanchethecat
    Not actually a cat
    26 Jul '12 12:27
    Originally posted by FMF
    "Courted by multinational companies and foreign heads of state over its rare minerals and potential oil resources, Greenland could win full independence from Denmark and join the European Union as a free state, according to one expert on the Arctic.
    Greenland’s leader Kuupik Kleist is boxing above his weight when it comes to foreign policy.

    Although the prem ...[text shortened]... out in the years ahead and what might be Greenland's circumstances in say 50 years from now?
    They could rent land out to the Chinese for missile sites and a big naval base.
  15. 26 Jul '12 13:51
    Originally posted by sh76
    Assuming global warming intensifies (and there's probably a pretty good chance it will), more of Greenland will become inhabitable and it will become more important strategically as its resources become more accessible and it becomes a more efficient base for shipping and oil exploration in the Arctic.

    Greenland being ruled by Denmark is an anachronism and o ...[text shortened]... f decades, I see Greenland as a key strategic sovereign nation exceedingly wealthy per capita.
    Might be a great place for capitalist Americans to flee to, when America truly reaches Marxist banana republic status.